Thursday, August 24, 2006

...Sky Lights...


Hey Folks...
I saw, I suspect, a likely UFO on the morning of November 8, 2005.

Risking Wrath

Stunned, I went into house, recorded a rhythm track, then laid an immediate lead track over it in one long take. This is the song.

It's called "SkyLights"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWg6OCWyoig

Go over and have a listen... and please vote if you have a moment. Music and Visuals are all mine.
  • alienview@adelphia.net
  • www.AlienView.net

Saturday, August 12, 2006

...Stunned Applause...

Jeremy Vaeni At Play
.,¸¸,.»§«,¸¸,.·´¯`·.,¸¸,.»§«*¥*»§«,¸¸,.·´¯`·.,¸¸,.»§«·.,¸¸,.


Jeremy Vaeni is another one of those guys I don't know from Bunny Pants. No, Bunny Pants isn't fair. Right out of the gate there is more respect tendered for Mr. Vaeni than mere "Bunny Pants" will allow.

See? "Bunny Pants" is an intimation that further investigation may be wasted time, and that said investigation might be considered ill advised. "Bunny Pants" abounds. Not so, Mr. Vaeni.

There is suspected there, there, reader. Investigation is warranted, I'd warrant.

We'll forget for a moment that the son-of-a-bitch can write (in a way that grabs this old soldier by his stacking-swivels)! He can also make film equally hungry for those self-same swivels aforementioned! Why, he's one of only two guys I know I'd like to be able to write 'like', actually. I'm in no way shamed.

Still, I don't know him well. He could be another clever charlatan. I've some experience with same. Still, even burned and shy? ...I don't think so.

I met the guy as a result of a regular and very cleverly executed column he writes for "UFO Magazine." It's ironic that I'd not found him on the INTERNET, but noticed him first in a technology as old as the 19th century... ...a pulp magazine, even if an excellent example of one...

He makes films, I said. "Hungry film," I said. Did I say he was funny? I mean that both ways, too. Laugh out-loud (with him)... and *peculiar* funny. But that's a good thing.

...And you get the feeling that he has throttled way back on his humor, reader, refrained from stoking that boiler gratuitously... Eh? In his way, after his fashion, passed through his filter and through his lens? He would have you take him seriously.

I shall.

His film? Well... think "Blair Witch Project" but dial it back about five points (lose a lot of the tormented snot), re-point it into the non-gratuitous but weirdly akimbo, and then push the un-trod path *hyperspace* button. As I've really never seen anything like it? I can't tell you what it is... reader. I fall short.

Why do you watch? I can sum it up into one word. Honesty. Honesty that is blistering to ones countenance and enough sometimes to make you squirm in your seat.

Strange honesty! Honesty that can make you flinch, but a flinch somehow strangely revisit-able. You have some difficulty believing that you saw what you saw and revisit it to find that you see what you see, you see?

Be forewarned! It is a kind of honesty that we are not used to with virtually nothing on a thousand channels of television, a billion web pages, and millions of books, papers, and magazines. Vaeni's film has an honesty that hurts as an observer watches the filmmaker explicate this hard-edged honesty safe in his TV chair at home... ...deceiving himself that he is not PART of the freak-show Vaeni pours through his assaulted sensibilities... gird your loins reader!

Vaeni did.

What's Jeremy Vaeni on about?

A seemingly sane and abundantly rational Jeremy Vaeni thinks he has inter-operated with the perplexing, enigmatic, and indefatigable *other*, boys and girls; I'd be using a duplicitously unflattering light if I just said... "abducted by aliens."

See, I shan't give the reader the opportunity to dismiss him so quickly! I remind the reader that there is more to his heaven and Earth than he can dream... whether he chooses to regard it or not! Moreover, I encourage these lads and lassies quick with that easy dismissal regarding uncomfortable concepts to which Vaeni alludes ... that they are disserved by their ignorance, disturbing news does not get better with age, and that any bliss detected in ignorance is naught but a dangerous lie, reader, anyway!

Made uncomfortable by the honesty of Jeremy Vaeni, the observer is served even if it is only that an observer finds heartfelt relief they are not Jeremy Vaeni. See? In a strange way Vaeni has courage so you don't have to, reader, even as you are encouraged to a little courage all your own.

Vaeni has "sack" reader, an eccentric strength of tested convictions, apparently. In a long military career I was a veteran of combat and senior training staff at hard-corps Officer Candidate schools, folks. I know what courage is. Vaeni has same in proverbial spades and super-sized boxcars.

Additionally, in clarion answer to Peggy Lee's timelessly poignant question... what the reader sees in apparent operation around them is not "all there is." Vaeni helps strike the scales from your weary and watering eyes about that. He's convincing with regard to the outlandish he suggests because he is so damned honest about everything else!

...Everything else, reader.

When you see the film? You'll understand what I mean. See the film. Everything else just gets a little bit clearer.

Winding up, I suspect the reader will agree that Vaeni's film is many things. Among these are that the film is nothing like the reader has ever seen. Its deprecating honesty is brutally, if non-violently, sincere. Its production values are excellent ... and damned if you don't find yourself, like extended friends and family, really liking this strange man named Jeremy Vaeni... ...even as he leads you to the very edge of credulity... ...where you'll jump, yourself, if you have a lick of sense or soul. I suspect Jeremy won't push you.

In closing: Vaeni soars and cleaves in the spirit of the finest Giordano Bruno and, that good, may even live to grace the stake of same. There are worse ways to end your days, reader. Read on!

In addition to producing (out of thin air by report!) "NO ONE'S WATCHING: AN ALIEN ABDUCTEE'S STORY," Vaeni is a writer of a regular column in "UFO Magazine," and author of a book titled "I Know Why The Aliens Don't Land!"

Try to keep up. I am.

See more at: http://www.valiens.com/

Tuesday, August 08, 2006

CSICOPia: Intellectual Bankruptcy From On High!

.,¸¸,.»§«,¸¸,.·´¯`·.,¸¸,.»§«*¥*»§«,¸¸,.·´¯`·.,¸¸,.»§«·.,¸¸,.


I come to you not to praise CSICOP, certainly, but to bury it! Such should be its woeful wage!

...And I must caution the listener that it is not Skeptics I have a problem with or that I am merely bored with the rationality CSICOPians only pretend to dispense... true skeptics are not the issue! They are in comparison persons to be revered above all others and are welcome company ... honored team members... boon companions...!

They are the most interesting of us, the most knowledgeable of us, and the ones to instruct us the most! They are not to be confused with scurrilous skepti-bunkies, ponderous pelicanists, or insipid CSICOPians, scurvy klasskurtxians... the antagonists regarded in the rest of this essay!

It remains...

...A righteous pox on CSICOP, that Committee for the Serially Insentient Commitment of Obdurate Persons, a collection of fringe flogging front-men and intellectually constipated imps of anti-science! Lately their ranks swell with the even more deceitful and cross-purposed, and their smug smirks of corn-fed contempt works its unctuous way through our cyberspace like an unhealthy mass worried uncomfortably through an internet's electronic bowels.

A pox upon them, again, for measure.

They are not what they vociferously portray themselves to be! Instead, they provide for and nurture the informational void that the hapless only attempt to fill, and then they complacently demonize those hapless for their, many times, sincere attempts to address that unnecessary void that CSICOP founded, actually, and must busily facilitate!

They've duplicitously set themselves up as a clearing house, reader, for hardnosed rationality and impartial science! They've populated their ranks with lettered ringers of dubious veracity! They've cloaked themselves in the too proud mantel of a convenient lap-dog science engineered to grind only the axes they contrive to grind!

Axes of denial, Axes of denunciation, and Axes of refutation... ...Axes well ground, I add, and then fatuously brandished like righteous swords in an astonishing display of arrogant hubris (disguised as humble piety). A Pox!

Astonishingly, they proclaim their six point covenant with the unwashed masses they actually despise, establish their thin veneer of trustworthy credibility, and then publish their *balanced rational worldview* in a six-point plan of stated intent, the subject of this essay. That six point plan is a cheesy fraud!

Like most frauds it is anything but balanced, actually. It is a canted mess of reflex denials, character assassinations, and bald duplicities. Let's look at that six point covenant, then, and examine each of the points in turn...

CSICOP's first point is especially stalwart sounding... fairly ringing with lofty ideals... nearly oozing good intentions, high standards, and best practice...

"1. Maintain a network of people interested in critically examining paranormal, fringe science, and other claims, and in contributing to consumer education."

One is immediately compelled to examine a *demonstrated* integrity of this aforementioned *network* of suggested efficaciousness. Founded by Dr. Paul Kurtz, a man constitutionally unable to perceive a difference between a UFO and a traditional leprechaun, this *network* seems, at first blush, to be a paragon of refined education, advanced experiential acumen, and incisive brainpower!

Predictably, as with everything else regarding CSICOP, appearances can be deceiving. Consider the unrelated and immaterial "Doctor's" degrees of many of the CSICOPian principals, as in the case of Dr. Joe Nickell, and the ridiculously canted, assumptive and NON-networking remarks he's made (among significant others) as if it were he (an English major!) who would proscribe what was and what was not acceptable to think about, for the rest of us. Dr. Nickell, sadly, is typical of the kind of person closely associated with CSICOP. His cant is obvious! What *service* is provided with this anti-network of canted expressions and immaterial persons?

The (overwhelmingly male and so affected) persons involved with CSICOP are a demonstrably canted lot decidedly incapable of any balanced examination... if for no other reason than that there is so little investigation actually going on! Indeed, the word investigation is a component of the very acronym they use to identify themselves, forgetting that it is publicly touted that "investigation is the middle name" of your garden variety CSICOPian...

Still, it refrains from same! CSICOP, instead, prefers to portentously pronounce on what is acceptable thinking in the form of scientific sounding dictates of dubious veracity, disingenuous assumptive-ness, and biased incompleteness.

At it's head... and as typified by its adherents near that head, CSICOP is a conflicted entity driven only by the denial of hostile mal-educated ideologues and is not a network of credible and balanced persons interested in critical examinations of anything... but its own obtuse agenda. It is a network only of obstinate denial, conflicted cant, and obvious bias! Verily, and at the last, the hapless consumer is ill served by this parody of science!

The CSICOPian second point is another insult to our aggregate intelligence...

"2. Prepare bibliographies of published materials that carefully examine such claims."

"Careful examination" of paranormal claims is airily abandoned in the production of bibliographies heavily (even admittedly!) stacked with researchers who toe the CSICOPian party-line. Since the very beginning (and as typified by the Dennis Rawlins imbroglio over the "StarBaby" paper) research critical *of* or in opposition *to* that CSICOPian party-line remains with convenient and very limited citation in these not so efficacious *bibliographies...* or why was "StarBaby" published in "Fate" and not in the "Skeptical Inquirer". Why can't Dr. David Rudiak get a peer review for his Mogul Work in the same canted CSICOPian rag?...On to the third point:

The third point would be more funny were it not for the dire implications it makes regarding a complete and balanced research outside the cloistered CSICOP paradigm CSICOPia would promote and stridently insists upon...

3. Encourage research by objective and impartial inquiry in areas where it is needed. (emphasis mine...)

This is rolling-on-the-floor-and-clenching-near-incontinent-cheeks-together laughable! Where can your garden variety CSICOPian not be shown to be anything but tediously subjective regarding every aspect of their conduct... and the corrosive performance of that conduct? Where is their *encouragement* possible given their character assassinations and reflex research discriminations? Their hoaxes and ringer placements? Their campaigns of ideological suppression and sponsor intimidation? Their bullying, their individual harassment, and their tyrannous aggravation?

How is a person with an alternative thought *encouraged* in such an atmosphere, or in the scurrilous actions of famous stage-clowns like Penn and Teller who lied to their guests, otherwise misrepresented their scurrilous intentions, and made them all look like buffoons, nut-bags and public whackos? What manner of "Bull-Shit" (Their choice of title) is that? CSICOP is far from 'objective', miles away from 'impartial', and, decidedly not the best choice to decide where 'inquiry is needed.' They perform a treacherous disservice, at best, to suggest that they do!
The fourth point is key to the infrastructure of institutional infidelity and the transmission of an ignoble CSICOPian meme!

"4. Convene conferences and meetings."

Oh... they do enough of that! Rest assured. They encourage all sorts of little splinter groups to grow up, clone-like, in their image... other busy little imps to caper around the book-burning fire... harsh infernos where reputations get burned at the stake and where the catechisms of the jealous status quo are rehearsed in the flickering light and stinking smoke...

No, any resemblance to balanced "conferences and meetings" is dissolved in the Ad Hominem attacks, derisive ridicule, and easy dismissal of the opposition thinker at these meetings. Audiences are encouraged to laugh and the provoking speaker is visibly pleased with the expression of that laughter it's been reported. Sounds more like a college frat party than a meeting of serious... hardnosed intellectuals.

Clearly -- these meeting are *coven conferences* described by some as Scientistic "Inquisition" assemblies! Their purpose is to dictate thought, proscribe their canted eschatology, and rehearse their *approved* scripture. All hail Doctors Kurtz and Shermer, our teachers, leaders, and holders of the guiding light! FEH!

The fifth point proves that their intimated balance is a self-admitted fraud!

"5. Publish articles that examine claims of the paranormal."

Asked previously and answered, reader! "Examine" how, given that there is so little (if any) investigation, going on, to support an examination! Besides, what further needs to be said than that their publishing accomplishments include the churlish screeds of one Kal K. Korff? 'Nuff said!The sixth and final point provokes in me a -keen- astonishment that a card carrying CSICOPian can -ever- behold his own reflection in a mirror!

"6. Do not reject claims on a priori grounds, antecedent to inquiry, but examine them objectively and carefully."

"A priori" means:
1. Proceeding from a known or assumed cause to a necessarily related effect; deductive.

A priori, flatly, suggests the exact opposite of a process of going where the data might lead -- the aspiration of any true scientist! The history of CSICOP is, again flatly, rich with the direct antithesis of "following the data."

They are patent cherry-pickers for evidence that supports their contentions and, by admission, dismissive of evidence that doesn't support their contentions! This is widely and competently reported. So, in this sense they are very "a priori" when they very unctuously proclaim... that they are not!

A priori also means:
2a. Derived by or designating the process of reasoning without reference to particular facts or experience, or, 2b. Knowable without appeal to particular experience.

The particular experience (or bias) of your friendly neighborhood CSICOPian is very much a factor in their, so-called, inquiry! Claims are measured first with a rubric of: can that claim first be *true* or not! That which is determined to be incapable of *truth*, to begin with (by dictate of fishy fiat!), is removed from serious consideration and ridiculed! "UFOs cannot exist," first, so an inquiry regarding whether they exist or not, is moot!

They can't happen... period, without regard to conflicting evidence of any type. They make up their minds about a question, and prosecute that, without once validating the question, which, facilitating them, must remain unasked. They are very much a priori in this sense, too. ...and they say that they are not... See how this works?
Finally. A priori means:

3. [The Determination] made before or without examination; not supported by factual study.

The preceding is the obvious method of the garden variety CSICOPian, who has made up his mind, "thank-you-very-much," and would prefer not to be confounded with the facts, if you'd please.

=Forget= that this is proclaimed by the concerned to be "not so," ...a priori describes them perfectly reader! "A priori," and not "investigation" ...would appear to be their middle name.

Additionally "careful and objective" are duplicitous malapropisms they employ, words carefully chosen to mask a very real agenda of *think-cloaking*, acrimonious axe-grinding, and rank intellectual fascism.

Clearly, a reasonable assessment of these six points, then, shows them to be more CSICOPian artful dodge... than stated aims to which they might bravely aspire! They are red herrings scripted to deceive and mislead, not to edify and enlighten!

CSICOP's six points of shame are carnival hucksterisms, empty platitudes which contrive to get you into their big CSICOPian tent for the scientistic (sic) revival meeting! Once there, smooth faced scient-evangelists like (the hugely disappointing!) Penn and Teller, the not so amazing Randi, or the bellicose and whiney Dr. Nickell (the fatuous Dr. McGaha!)... can perform their unbalanced slights of hand!

Now these guys, among others, are just slick scientistic-scripture pounding frauds with ulterior motives! They front an organization of similar myopic intellectualists, little men who steadfastly assert to the worried credulous that there is a place for *everything*, and everything (read 'everybody'!) should be in its place!

I see them as spiritless men (few women) for a soulless organization as bereft of imagination as they are of creativity. It's no stretch that they are the nineteenth century proponents for the new dark ages threatened in our... 21st century.

Now I'm not a scientist, but an artist and a poet (...forgetting I was raised by a scientist and been around them all my life, and that I have a deep respect, admiration, and appreciation for the rules of science), I can call these CSICOPians as I see them, smug proponents of unbrave institutional evil, a scourge of canted intellect, and a hurdle to the rising and advancing of the human spirit -- a torpedo for our potential!

As with other dark-age producing tyrants of the past, I patiently await the eventual demise of planet CSICOPia and I further anticipate the strident repudiation of their unctuous six point covenant of bald misdirection and oily obfuscation.

Their covenant, finally, is a back-stepping farce. Verily!

alienview@adelphia.net
www.AlienView.net